Morillo v. Trexx
Filing
9
DECISION AND ORDER accepting and adopting # 8 Magistrate Judge Dancks' Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is dismissed; and the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over any Plaintiff's state law claims, without prejudice, subject to refilling in state court. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 12/12/17. (lmw) (Copy served upon pro se plaintiff via regular and certified mail)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________
JOSE A. MORILLO, JR.,
Plaintiff,
5:17-CV-1125
(GTS/TWD)
v.
TREXX,
Defendant.
__________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
JOSE A. MORILLO, JR.
Plaintiff, Pro Se
814 West Belden Avenue
Syracuse, New York 13204
GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this pro se civil rights action filed by Jose A. Morillo, Jr.
(“Plaintiff”), against Trexx (“Defendant”), is U.S. Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks
Report-Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint be dismissed for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 8.) Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the
Report-Recommendation and the deadline in which to do so has expired. For the reasons set
forth below, the Report-Recommendation is adopted in its entirety and Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint is dismissed.
When, as here, no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that
report-recommendation to only a clear error review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee
Notes: 1983 Addition. When performing such a “clear error” review, “the court need only
satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.” Id.: see also Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1.
(S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (Sotomayor, J.) (“I am permitted to adopt those sections of [a
magistrate judge’s] report to which no specific objection is made, so long as those sections are
not facially erroneous.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Based upon a review of this matter, the Court can find no clear error in the ReportRecommendation: Magistrate Judge Dancks employed the proper standards, accurately recited
the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. As a result, the Court accepts and adopts
the Report-Recommendation for the reasons stated therein. (Dkt. No. 8.)
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Dancks’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 8) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 4) is DISMISSED; and it is
further
ORDERED that the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any of
Plaintiff’s state law claims, without prejudice, subject to refiling in state court.
Dated: December 12, 2017
Syracuse, New York
____________________________________
HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY
Chief United States District Judge
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?